Appeal No. 2005-1244 Page 7
Application No. 10/134,902
the selection of either one to form the support structure would be within the level
of ordinary skill in the art.
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require a table tennis table half to be made of two
portions interconnected by a supporting leg comprising first and second leg members
and a connecting member having both (1) a central portion with a diameter substantially
the same as the diameter of the first and second leg members and (2) reduced diameter
end portions that are received within open ends of the first and second leg members.
However, it is our opinion that these limitations are not suggested by the applied prior
art. In that regard, while Lifetime does teach a three piece supporting leg, Lifetime does
not teach or suggest using the three piece supporting leg to interconnect separate
portions of the table tennis table. As such, we fail to find any motivation, incentive,
suggestion or teaching in Lifetime that would have made it obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified
Sportcraft so as to arrive at the claimed subject matter. In our view, the only suggestion
for modifying Sportcraft in the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-
noted limitations stems from impermissible hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellant's own disclosure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007